Full text - Faculty of Social Sciences - Université d'Ottawa

68 IPC Review 3 Commentary from the Co-Chairs of the National Municipal Network for Crime Prevention 69
communities are more responsive to local needs and priorities, and central
governments sometimes run roughshod over these concerns.
In England and Wales, as indeed is the case in Canada, the notion of
Crime Prevention through Social Development (CPSD) has inspired many
organizations. In many cases, CPSD has animated organizations to work
together to develop partnerships and bring together people that formerly had
little experience in sharing a vision, let alone information and resources. This
approach “by and for communities” involves a process of empowerment, and
can help build social capital in communities. But this process is not automatic,
and there can be resistance from social and justice service sectors over resources
and power. The challenge is to ensure that the goals of crime prevention are
incorporated into organizations, and to sustain this long enough to be able to
affect system change and measure impacts.
Both Homel and Solomon conclude that one of the conditions for effective
crime prevention is the capacity to manage collaborative multi-agency actions.
This begins with an agreement that enforcement alone cannot address
the complex needs of the communities and families most at risk. While
investments in reactive and enforcement-based policies and programs may
be seen to be expedient, they cannot be expected to accomplish the work
necessary for effective crime prevention in local communities. In fact, they
may detract from other opportunities. Solomon outlines the drift of the British
Labour government from a “tough on crime, tough on causes” approach to a
mainly enforcement-based vision that criminalizes an increasing number of
people, including children and youth. Such coercive measures can be counterproductive,
both in terms of financial costs, and of the impact they have on the
trust and confidence of the community.
Fourteen Canadian municipalities from coast to coast have come together,
with the support of the Institute for the Prevention of Crime (at the University
of Ottawa), to form the National Municipal Network for Crime Prevention.
We would be well served to heed some of the conclusions that have been
drawn by Solomon and Homel. Firstly, it can’t be stated forcefully enough
that political will is key for the success of crime prevention. Homel explains
that “the focus on short term (seed) funding is premised on an anticipation
that other agencies (...) will pick up any need for continuing crime prevention
activity”. Of course, this is not necessarily the case because of competing
demands or a lack of appreciation for their role in crime prevention.
This means that local politicians must ensure “strong and consistent
leadership and supportive governance structures” (Homel) and that “local
partnerships (…) be given space and authority, and encouraged to focus on
local priorities” (Solomon).
These and other lessons from international experiences are already reflected
in some Canadian crime prevention policies such as those of the Province
of Québec 1 and, more recently, the Alberta crime prevention action plan. 2
Importantly, both of these policies recognize the leading role and responsibility
of municipalities in crime prevention. These policies make a vital connection
between crime prevention and interventions in response to local issues in
public safety and security. But they cannot be accomplished without senior
orders of government collaborating with and supporting local governments in
their development efforts. Public safety and security need focused, committed,
evidence based investments that support a vision of a reduction and prevention
of crime, victimization and fear of crime for all.
For the National Municipal Network for Crime Prevention, a key lesson
emerges from reflecting on the experiences of other countries: the importance of
dedicated and flexible resources. Long term and sustainable resources are needed
to implement significant projects in communities affected by crime, but we
also need resources to evaluate what is being done in order to ensure efficiency,
effectiveness and sustainability. Finally, these resources need to be based on
a common vision of crime prevention while remaining flexible enough to be
adaptable to local concerns. There must be “a much lighter touch from the
centre” as Solomon says, but we cannot expect crime prevention collaborations
and initiatives in municipalities to prevail without national and provincial
commitment and support.
In many municipalities across the country, there is a clear dedication to public
safety and security, but often the tools to accomplish the task are limited.
What is now needed is a national strategy that acknowledges and supports the
ground level while remaining flexible with regards to its application. We need
a commitment from all orders of government to move beyond jurisdictional
debates and focus on the vital impact that crime, victimization and the fear of
crime have on the quality of life of all communities.
The fourteen municipalities that have come together to form the National
Municipal Network for Crime Prevention have continued to exchange
experiences. We have learned that we are more similar than different. Some
actions are specific to the local context, but all speak to the vital need for
1 See www.msp.gouv.qc.ca/prevention/prevention.asp?txtSection=publicat&txtCategorie=politique
2 See www.justice.gov.ab.ca/safe/